[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, the principle of equivalence is used to expand the scope of patent protection beyond literal infringement. According to the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020) and relevant judicial interpretations, when determining whether the disputed technical solution falls within the scope of protection, the principle of full coverage is usually applied for literal comparison first. If there is no literal infringement, but the technical features in the disputed technical solution and those described in the claims achieve essentially the same function, achieve essentially the same effect, and can be reasonably inferred by ordinary technical personnel in the field without creative effort at the time of the disputed infringement, it can be deemed as equivalent infringement. The application is also subject to restrictions such as prohibition of estoppel, donation rules, and prior art defenses, and the technical solutions explicitly excluded or not described in the claims cannot be included in the scope of equivalence.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

In the determination of patent infringement, the principle of equivalence is the focus of disputes between the right holder and the defendant. In practice, the defendant often avoids literal infringement by replacing some technical features, while the right holder claims that it constitutes equivalence. When handling patent cases in Beijing, the court will compare the technical features of the claims one by one to determine whether the corresponding features of the defendant's solution satisfy the basic requirements of the same means, function, and effect without requiring creative labor. At the same time, it will review whether there are restrictions such as estoppel, donation, or prior art defense. Accurately defining technical features is the basis for claims and defenses. When necessary, technical investigators or appraisal institutions can be utilized to assist in this process.

II. Key points of dispute

There are four points that need to be clarified: Firstly, the order of determining literal infringement and equivalent infringement; Secondly, the standard for judging basic similarity in means, functions, and effects; Thirdly, the time point and subject standard for determining whether creative work is required; Fourthly, restrictions such as the prohibition of repudiation, donation rules, and prior art defenses. Overall, the equivalent principle is a supplement to the comprehensive coverage principle. Its application requires strict adherence to standards and is subject to various rules to prevent the scope of protection from being unduly expanded. The adequacy of evidence and technical arguments affects the determination of the outcome, and the dissection and comparison of technical features are particularly crucial.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

Henglue Law Firm has accumulated practical experience in reducing liability through meticulous comparison and defense in intellectual property infringement cases. The plaintiff, Company A, is a well-known domestic paper company. Its trademark has been recognized as a well-known trademark by multiple courts and administrative authorities. The defendant, Company B, obtained authorization from a third party to use another registered trademark and design patent to produce and sell similar sanitary napkins through e-commerce platforms. Company A sued, alleging that Company B imitated its well-known trademark and packaging design to cause confusion, and requested that Company B stop the infringement and pay compensation of 980,000 yuan. Company B appointed Liu Yuanyuan, a lawyer from our firm, to represent it. Liu argued that: the defendant's logo originated from a legally registered trademark and was used with authorization, with obvious differences in suffixes, which could be distinguished by the general public; the packaging design originated from a design patent, but Company A only submitted a copyright registration without proving actual use and recognition, which did not constitute a well-known packaging design; Company B's authorization period was short, production volume was low, pricing was low, and the product had already been discontinued, so the infringement circumstances were insufficient to support high compensation. The court partially adopted the lawyer's arguments, finding trademark infringement but rejecting the claim of unfair competition, and determined compensation for economic losses of 50,000 yuan and reasonable expenses of 10,000 yuan, totaling 60,000 yuan, a significant reduction from 980,000 yuan. This case shows that whether it's the equivalence judgment in patent infringement or the similarity comparison in trademark infringement, the key lies in conducting meticulous technical comparisons and evidence organization around the rights claims or logos, and accurately distinguishing differences and similarities. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm.Liu YuanyuanThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202011201094, subject to the document issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

Action suggestions: Firstly, when the right holder claims equal infringement, he/she should break down the technical features of the claim one by one and explain the corresponding relationship; Secondly, compare and demonstrate the differences and similarities between the disputed solution and the claim in terms of means, function, and effect; Thirdly, pay attention to reviewing whether there are prohibitions against repudiation, donation rules, and prior art defenses; Fourthly, if necessary, apply for technical appraisal or involve a technical investigator to enhance the persuasiveness of the argument. For matters involving intellectual property protection, you can refer to the relevant provisions of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China and the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China.Intellectual property protection and corporate complianceFor contract and commercial disputes, you can refer to the following resources for more information:Business and contract disputes in enterprisesLegal basis: The provisions of the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China (amended in 2020) and relevant judicial interpretations regarding equivalent features and infringement determination. The specific application shall be subject to the currently effective laws, regulations, and judicial rulings.

5. Henglue Law Firm's Reminder

Firstly, the principle of equivalence is a supplement to the principle of full coverage, and a literal comparison needs to be conducted first. Secondly, the requirement of equivalence is that the means, functions, and effects should be basically the same and do not require creative work. Thirdly, it is subject to the restrictions of estoppel, donation rules, and prior art defenses. Fourthly, the decomposition and comparison of technical features are the core of claims and defenses. For matters involving intellectual property protection, it can be resolved through legal means.Intellectual property protection and corporate complianceThe service is supported, and you can refer to it when handling difficult and complex casesSpecial servicesColumn.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: How is the principle of equivalence applied in patent infringement cases?

After a literal comparison does not constitute infringement, if the technical features in the disputed technical solution and the features described in the claims are achieved by essentially the same means, perform essentially the same functions, and achieve essentially the same effects, and ordinary technicians in the field can associate them without creative effort, it can be determined that it constitutes equivalent infringement. Its application is subject to restrictions such as the prohibition of estoppel and the donation rule.

Q2: What is the difference between infringement by equivalence and infringement by literal copying?

Literary infringement refers to the situation where the disputed solution falls within the scope described in the claims, which can be judged relatively objectively. Equivalent infringement, on the other hand, extends the scope of protection beyond the literal meaning based on the substantial similarity of technical features. Generally, the court first determines whether there is literal infringement, and if this is not the case, it then examines whether there is equivalent infringement. The two types of infringement differ in terms of the emphasis placed on evidence collection and argumentation.

Q3: What are the judging criteria?

The core is that the three are basically the same and do not require creative work: the means are basically the same, the functions are basically the same, and the effects are basically the same. Moreover, ordinary technical personnel in this field can associate with it without creative work when the alleged infringement occurs. The judgment is based on the technical features of the claims, and it is necessary to compare them one by one. It cannot be simply compared with the overall scheme.

Q4: What are the restrictions?

Common restrictions include the principle of estoppel, which states that the content waived by the right holder in the authorization or invalidation procedure cannot be re-included through equivalence; the donation rule, which states that the technical solutions disclosed in the specification but not included in the claims are considered to be donated to the public; and the prior art defense. In addition, the solutions explicitly excluded by the claims cannot be included in the scope of equivalence.

Q5: How to provide evidence?

The claims can be broken down into several technical features, and each feature can be compared with the corresponding feature of the defendant's solution to illustrate the similarities and differences in means, functions, and effects. The argument can be supported by the specification, drawings, and common knowledge. If necessary, a technical appraisal can be applied for or a technical investigator can be involved. Technical comparison reports and experimental data are usually helpful in enhancing the persuasiveness of the argument.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretation in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are currently facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the relevant evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Intellectual property protection legal services·Attorney Liu Yuanyuan·Beijing Henglue Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on current laws and regulations and publicly available adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. In the event of a dispute, please consult a practicing lawyer in a timely manner.